Michael Champion and XML/HTML Task Force
I made suggestions on approaches to provide a technical solution. I
definitely have insufficient knowledge of the structure and capabilities of
the individual working groups to suggest assignments. The creation of a
complete XML (XSDL) schema(s) for XHTML5 might also be a commercial
advantage that could induce a private corporation or consortium to undertake
this project. The capacity to use XSD 1.1 including its assertions for
creating the elements used in menus and other software entry modalities
could be a corner-stone for the creation of a solid, extendable, reliable,
software infrastructure for medical informatics.
Bob Leif
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:14 PM
To: rleif@rleif.com; 'Norman Walsh'
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: RE: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011
I'm unclear on what you want this task force to do with these
suggestions. Shouldn't they be directed to the HTML working group?
-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-xml-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-html-xml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Leif
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:59 PM
To: 'Norman Walsh'
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: RE: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Norm and XML/HTML Task Force
I believe that the extension of the use of RDFa prefixes in XHTML5
would help to solve the problem of XML in XHTML5. Firstly, I believe that a
solution would be simpler in terms of software engineering and more
importantly politics for XHTML5. The political aspect is that most of the
users who would strongly object to changes to permit the use of XML in HTML5
would be users of HTML5. Users of XHTML5 have already signified that they
want to keep a relationship to XML.
Since support of RDFa prefixes is legal, but optional, in HTML5
(see below), we would only be asking for extension of this support.
*** Decision of the Working Group ***
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0689.html)
Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the "Clarify how
prefixes work in RDFa, and that they're an optional feature."
Change
Proposal for ISSUE-120. Of the Change Proposals before us, this
one
has drawn the weaker objections
I believe that this statement refers to:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange
ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange
I believe that Ada was either the first or one of the first
programming languages to use a renames statement. A prefix is the equivalent
of an Ada and the SPARK(1) subset of Ada renames. Both of these programming
languages are used in mission critical applications, which have much tougher
requirements than XHTML5. Therefore, any arguments against the safety of the
use of prefixes would need considerable evidence. The concept of information
hiding should apply to URLs. Long strings may be necessary for code
traceability but they can clutter up code. This is why curies and latter
prefixes were developed for RDFa.
The great virtue of a prefix is that the HTML5 parser can be given
specific information on how to handle the prefix and anything that follows
it. This includes ignoring it and letting another tool be responsible for
it. Thus, only a minimal change can be made to XHTML5, particularly if it
supports RDFa prefixes. IDL should be able to provide support for the
equivalent of
<xs:openContent mode="interleave">
<xs:any namespace="http://www.r.org"
processContents="strict"/>
</xs:openContent>
I would suggest that the namespace be a prefix. This should result
in the xhtml5 parser ignoring all content in elements starting with that
prefix. This should limit the rest of the discussion to how to use XML
schema derived elements in elements, such as xhtml5 forms?
(1)
http://www.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/sparkdocs-docs/SPARK_LRM
.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:10 AM
To: rleif@rleif.com
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: Re: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011
"Robert Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> In any event, an HTML5 schema could serve as a useful test-bed
for
> experimentation and prototyping.
I suppose it could, except that HTML5 markup isn't XML and isn't
going to become XML, so it's probably only useful for content creation.
Using XML for content creation and management is likely to be valuable and
widespread.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Reality is what refuses to go away
when
http://nwalsh.com/ | I stop believing in it.--Philip K.
Dick